Dependance of energy inputs on area and economic size of family

Scientific quarterly journal I S N N 1 4 2 9 - 7 2 6 4
Agricultural Engineering
2014: 2(150):209-217
H o m e p a g e : http://ir.ptir.org
DOI: http://dx.medra.org/10.14654/ir.2014.150.047
DEPENDANCE OF ENERGY INPUTS ON AREA AND ECONOMIC SIZE
OF FAMILY FARMS
Zbigniew Wasąg∗
Social Insurance Institution (ZUS), branch in Biłgoraj
∗
Contact details: ul. Kościuszki 103, 23-400 Biłgoraj, e-mail: [email protected]
ARTICLE INFO
ABSTRACT
Article history:
Received: February 2014
Received in the revised form:
March 2014
Accepted: April 2014
The objective of the paper is defining the influence of agricultural
land area (AL) and economic size on energy inputs in family farms
that are beneficiaries of European Union funding. 70 farms of
Biłgoraj County that were beneficiaries of EU funding for technical
modernization were researched within 2004-2009. In order to define
energy inputs, the group of farms that were the object of the research
were divided according to the amount of subsidy, area of agricultural
land, economic size (ESU) and the income of an enterprise. In the
process of characterizing the researched farms according to the
level of possessed energy means, tractors, self-propelled combine
harvesters and electric engines used in the process of farm production were taken into account, including also the ones mounted in
the equipment operated in the farms. The level of energy inputs in
the researched farms calculated into area unit was decreasing systematically, both when the amount of funding increased, as well as area, economic size and income of an enterprise. In the group of farms according to
the economic size, when its size increased, energy inputs decreased, and the
tendency remained the same in farms of the highest income of an enterprise.
In farms of a small area (up to 10 ha) of agricultural land (AL), apart
from high level of specific labour input, there were high inputs of
manual labour.
Keywords:
energy inputs,
agricultural land area (AL),
economic size,
subsidy amount,
income of a holding
Introduction
Agriculture technology implementation is connected with installing in the equipment or
purchasing for a farm independent energy means, mainly combustion or electric ones. The
main source of power in farms are tractors, and then self-propelled farm machines and
engines working within the farm (Wasąg, 2011). Energy inputs are observable mainly in the
form of manual labour and work of combustion or electric engines. Labour costs increase
and decreasing relations between agricultural products and means of production make necessary changes in farms organization. In order to increase a family income, one should
extensively organize and manage in an intense manner (Sawa, 1998). Technical condition
and structure of possessed mechanization means in specific (organizational and economic)
Zbigniew Wasąg
production conditions influence labour process and define effectiveness of managing in
a farm, which plays a major role in the farmers’ decision making process on investment
purchase and their sources of financing (Sawa, 1994; Wójcicki and Pawlak, 1996; Kocira
and Sawa, 2008). The process of improving technical modernization of farms requires increasing the level of labour process mechanization, with the assumption however, that it
will have a positive influence on the whole farm production process, including the environment. Production factors are always combined with manual labour impact, they are
defined as production means of production process, which are presented in relation of production means (capital) to labour force (labour). For this reason, it is necessary to „equip”
labour (man-hour) and work-place (of a man), in order to achieve high effectiveness of
farm production mechanization (Kocira and Sawa, 2008).
The objective of the paper is to define the influence of agricultural land area (AL) and
economic size on energy inputs in family farms that are beneficiaries of European Union
funding.
Material and methodology of the research
In the years 2004–2009 70 farms of Biłgoraj County that were beneficiaries of EU funding for technical modernization were researched. In order to define energy inputs, the group
of farms under the research were divided according to the amount of subsidy, area of agricultural land, economic size (ESU) and the income of an enterprise. In the process of characterizing the researched farms according to the level of possessed energy means, tractors, self-propelled combine harvesters and electric engines used in the process of farm
production were taken into account, including also the ones mounted in the equipment
operated in the farms (e.g. machinery used for re-loading, for preparing pastures, milking
machines and milk cooling machines).
Process mechanization level of work in the farms was assumed according to Zaremba
(Pawlak and Wójcicki, 1993; Zaremba, 1985; 1986):
W=
where:
W
Lm
Lo
0,2
210
0,2 Lm
·100
Lo + 0,2 Lm
– mechanization level (%),
– total energy inputs of mechanical means (kWh),
– total inputs of manual labour (man-hour),
– coefficient balancing specific labour (kWh) with manual labour (man-hour).
(1)
Dependance of energy inputs...
The increase of mechanization level coefficient in the period when the research was
conducted, was recognized as an effectiveness proof for farmer’s action. Apart from this,
the coefficient characterises the labour process because it defines percentage share of specific labour in the process execution.
Energy share of specific labour that accompanies every man-hour may constitute the
coefficient that defines the character of executed work (Sawa, 2009):
U ep =
Lm
Lr
(2)
where:
Uep – work energetic equipment (kWh·man-hour-1),
– specific labour inputs (kWh),
Lm
– manual labour inputs (man-hour).
Lr
Research results
The highest installed power (kW·100 ha-1 AL) was observed in the smallest farms in
each researched group (table 1) and was decreasing along with their increase (e.g. of area:
from 1241 up to 454 kW·100 ha-1 AL). The exception were farms of economic size of 8-16
ESU, where installed power in relation to the lower group (up to 8 ESU) increased from
968 to 1030 kW·100 ha-1 AL. However, specific labour inputs only in the group of farms
placed according to their area were fluctuating, and they were higher in the group of farms
of above 70 ha AL (1398 kWh·ha-1 AL) than 50-70 ha AL (999 kWh·ha-1 AL). Farms for
which the subsidy amount was higher than PLN 150 thousand (table 1) had the highest
average area (68.6 ha AL) and the lowest for this group coefficient of installed power (562
kW·100 ha-1 AL). Specific labour inputs in calculation to a working hour amounted to
42.41 kWh·man-hour-1 and they were only slightly lower than in farms of the area above
70 ha AL (51.48 kWh·man-hour-1). It gets reflected in manual labour inputs that for a farm
of the subsidy amount above PLN 150 thousand (80 man-hour·ha-1 AL) were higher from
the inputs in farms of area above 70 ha AL (68 man-hour·ha-1 AL) and 50-70 ha AL (77
man-hour·ha-1 AL). Energy inputs for PLN one thousand of subsidy were relatively high in
farms that were smaller from the point of view of area (82 man-hour·thousand PLN-1 and
524 kWh·thousand PLN-1) and
economy
(73 man-hour·thousand PLN-1 and 814
kWh·thousand PLN-1) , and of the lowest subsidy amount (111 man-hour·thousand PLN-1
and 1073 kWh·thousand PLN-1) and the income of an enterprise (77 man-hour·thousand
PLN-1 and 661 kWh·thousand PLN-1).
211
Zbigniew Wasąg
212
Dependance of energy inputs...
Table 2
Energy inputs and coefficient of mechanization level according to Zaremba (W) taking into
account the subsidy amount
Specification
Level of energy inputs (man-hour·ha-1 AL
or kWh·ha-1 AL) in farms of subsidy amount
(thousand PLN)
100< 50 50-100
> 150
Average
150
-1
Labour inputs (man-hour·ha AL)
274
255
192
80
200
Total in a farm,
including production:
– crop
– animal
– other work plus outside workers
69
61
120
101
84
93
Inputs (kWh·ha-1 AL)
2248
2206
41
71
80
28
23
29
50
79
72
1795
1483
1933
1868
39
143
27
51
119
1813
52
143
27
51
119
1445
9
143
27
51
119
1083
59
143
27
51
119
1552
40
143
27
51
119
64.8
64.0
67.4
76.0
67.1
Total labour of own means,
including:
– tractors
– self-propelled combine harvesters
– pastures preparation
– milking and milk secure
– transportation of loading masses
– other
Mechanization coefficient according to Zaremba (W), (%)
In farms, taking into account the subsidy amount (table 2), labour inputs of outside
workers were at the level of 72 man-hour·ha-1 AL, with general input for crop production
79 man-hour·ha-1 AL (2251 man-hour·farm-1) and animal production 50 man-hour·ha-1 AL
(1425 man-hour·farm-1). In the researched farms there were higher labour inputs incurred for
crop production than for animal production. The reason for this is a low number of heads of
livestock and high inputs for crop production caused by hiring seasonal workers at large
plantations of tobacco and fruit bushes. Wójcicki (2001) obtained in his researches production inputs of own labour (of a family) on an average 1171 man-hour·farm-1 with crop production and 2311 man-hour·farm-1 with animal production. Manual labour inputs replaced
by specific labour were highest in farms with the subsidy amount up to PLN 50 thousand
(2248 kWh·ha-1 AL), and they got reduced by almost 40% with the subsidy amount above
PLN 150 thousand (1483 kWh·ha-1 AL). The inputs (table 3) were highest in farms up to
10 ha AL (3197 kWh·ha-1 AL) and got reduced significantly with the increase by 20 ha of
AL area. In the group of farms according to the economic size it was also proved that together with its increase, energy inputs got reduced, and the tendency remained observable
in farms of the highest income of an enterprise. Similar results were obtained by Kocira and
others (2006), who stated that farms of the highest economic size incur unit energy inputs
that are 3 times lower than in farms of lower economic value.
213
Zbigniew Wasąg
214
Dependance of energy inputs...
Mechanization level of production according to Zaremba (table 2) increased with the increase of the subsidy amount, but only from 100-150 and area of PLN 150 thousand, and its
average value amounted to 67.1%. A similar tendency was observed (table 3) together with
the AL area increase and income of an enterprise increase. However, in the group arranged
according to economic size, the highest mechanization level was proved by farms within
the range of 16-40 ESU (up to 72.6%).
It has been stated (table 3), that in farms of small area (up to 10 ha) AL, apart from high
inputs of specific labour (3,197 kWh·ha-1 AL), there were high inputs of manual labour
reported (477 man-hour·ha-1 AL). Mechanization level (table 2) is only a coefficient of
labour process organization, and it depends on the management process, which is represented amongst others by a rational way of equipping a farm with mechanization means,
and on the production technology, which defines the usage of possessed technical means.
For the whole group of researched farms, the coefficient of mechanization level (67.1% on
an average) confirms the expected indicator (60-70%) for model farms (Pawlak and
Wójcicki, 1993).
Work energetic equipment (fig. 1) increased proportionally to the area increase (ha AL)
and assistance amount (PLN thousand·farm-1). Despite the fact that in farms of area above
70 ha AL the subsidy amount decreased in relation to the group from 50-70 ha AL, it did
not influence the increase of the analyzed mechanization coefficient.
Figure 1. Work energetic equipment taking into account the area of researched farms and
assistance amount
Conclusion
The highest installed power was observed in the smallest farms in each researched
group, and it was decreasing along with their increase. Energy inputs in the researched
farms are derivatives of manual labour and combustion and electric engines work. Their
level calculated into to area unit was decreasing systematically, both with the increase of
215
Zbigniew Wasąg
the subsidy amount, as well as area, economic size and income of an enterprise. In the researched farms higher labour inputs were incurred for crop production than for animal
production. The reason for this is a low livestock and high inputs for crop production
caused by hiring seasonal workers in big tobacco and fruit bushes farms.
Energy inputs for PLN thousand of the subsidy amount were relatively high in the
smallest farms from the point of view of area and economy, and of the lowest subsidy
amount level and income of an enterprise. Manual labour inputs replaced by specific labour
were highest in farms of assistance amount level up to PLN 50 thousand, and decreased by
almost 40% at the subsidy amount above PLN 150 thousand. The inputs were highest in
farms up to 10 ha AL and decreased significantly with the increase of area of AL by 20 ha.
In the group of farms according to the economic value, it was pointed out as well that with
its increase, energy inputs got reduced, and the tendency remained valid for the farms of the
highest income of a holding. In farms of small area (up to10 ha) AL, apart from high specific labour inputs, there were high inputs of manual labour observed.
References
Kocira, S.; Parafiniuk, S.; Sawa, J. (2006). Nakłady energetyczne w gospodarstwach o różnej wielkości ekonomicznej. Inżynieria Rolnicza, 5(80), 265-271.
Kocira, S.; Sawa, J. (2008). Techniczne uzbrojenie procesu pracy w różnych typach gospodarstw
rolniczych. Inżynieria Rolnicza, 2(100), 83-87.
Pawlak, M.; Wójcicki, Z. (1993). Metoda oceny efektywności mechanizacji gospodarstw rodzinnych.
Postępy Nauk Rolniczych, 2, 107-115.
Sawa, J. (1994). Niektóre aspekty racjonalnego inwestowania w maszyny rolnicze, w: Materiały
konferencyjne AR „Racjonalna mechanizacja gospodarstw rodzinnych”. Lublin, 108-116.
Sawa, J. (1998). Mechanizacja produkcji i czynniki determinujące jej efektywność w gospodarstwach
rodzinnych. WAR, Lublin, PL ISSN 0860-4355.
Sawa, J. (2009). Intensywność organizacji jako miernik ekologicznego zrównoważenia produkcji
rolniczej. Journal of Agribusiness and Rural Development 2(12), 175-182.
Wasąg, Z. (2011). Sprawność technicznej modernizacji wybranych gospodarstw rodzinnych korzystających z funduszy Unii Europejskiej. WUP, Lublin, ISSN 1899-2374.
Wójcicki, Z. (2001). Metody badania i ocena przemian w rozwojowych gospodarstwach rodzinnych.
PTIR, Kraków, ISBN 8386264748.
Wójcicki, Z.; Pawlak, J. (1996). Stan i kierunki rozwoju techniki rolniczej w Polsce. IBMER, Warszawa, ISBN 8386264284.
Zaremba, W. (1985). Ekonomika i organizacja mechanizacji rolnictwa. PWRiL, Warszawa, ISBN
8309008619.
Zaremba, W. (1986). Energetyka w systemie eksploatacji sprzętu rolniczego. PWRiL, Warszawa,
ISBN 8309010834.
216
Dependance of energy inputs...
ZALEŻNOŚĆ NAKŁADÓW ENERGETYCZNYCH OD POWIERZCHNI
I WIELKOŚCI EKONOMICZEJ GOSPODARSTW RODZINNYCH
Streszczenie. Celem pracy jest określenie wpływu powierzchni użytków rolnych (UR) i wielkości
ekonomicznej na nakłady energetyczne w gospodarstwach rodzinnych korzystających z dofinansowania Unii Europejskiej. W latach 2004-2009 przebadano 70 gospodarstw rolnych z powiatu biłgorajskiego korzystających z dofinansowania UE na modernizację techniczną. Do określenia nakładów
energetycznych badaną zbiorowość gospodarstw podzielono wg kryterium kwoty pomocy, powierzchni UR, wielkości ekonomicznej (ESU) i dochodu przedsiębiorstwa. Przy charakteryzowaniu
stopnia wyposażenia badanych gospodarstw w środki energetyczne uwzględniono użytkowane
w procesie produkcji rolniczej ciągniki, kombajny samobieżne i silniki elektryczne, w tym wmontowane w urządzenia pracujące w obrębie podwórza. Poziom nakładów energetycznych w badanych
gospodarstwach w przeliczeniu na jednostkę powierzchni systematycznie spadał, zarówno przy wzroście kwoty pomocy, jak i powierzchni, wielkości ekonomicznej oraz dochodu przedsiębiorstwa.
W grupie gospodarstw wg wielkości ekonomicznej wraz z jej wzrostem zmniejszały się nakłady
energetyczne, a tendencja ta utrzymywała się w gospodarstwach o największych dochodach przedsiębiorstwa. W gospodarstwach o małej powierzchni (do 10 ha) UR, obok wysokich nakładów pracy
uprzedmiotowionej, wystąpiły wysokie nakłady pracy ludzkiej.
Słowa kluczowe: nakłady energetyczne, powierzchnia UR, wielkość ekonomiczna, kwota pomocy,
dochód przedsiębiorstwa
217